Saying husband/wife violates Christian dignity school says

A page on the University of Dayton’s website recommends that students avoid using gendered language, including “husband” and “wife.”

The webpage, posted under the Women’s Center section of the website, lists several examples of gender-specific words alongside their “gender inclusive” alternatives, suggesting for instance that students say “workforce” instead of “manpower” and “intermediary” or “go-between” rather than “middleman.”

In addition, the primer advocates the use of “business person” instead of “businessman” or “businesswoman,” “mail carrier” or “postal worker” instead of “mailman,” and “representative” or “legislator” instead of “Congressman” and “Congresswoman.”

The page also discourages the use of gendered titles for professions, urging students to instead employ “generic occupational titles like administrator, doctor, lawyer, nurse, and secretary,” because “It is easier to see that these jobs can be done by a person of any gender when using gender inclusive or gender neutral language.”

[RELATED: Writing course calls inclusive language ‘an ethical obligation’]

“The gender inclusive language [page] is an educational resource—it is neither a guide nor an advisory nor does it represent University of Dayton or Women’s Center policy—and has been posted on the website for at least three years,” the university told The College Fix.

UD sophomore Piran Talkington, however, told Campus Reform that even if it is not official policy, the website is an example of the infantilization of today’s college students.

“While my university is calling this an ‘educational resource’ instead of a ‘guide’ or ‘advisory,’ they are setting a precedent to start this possible, horrible future where words have lost all history and power,” he argued. “Should we be inclusive? Absolutely. Should we change historical words with meaning to PC terms for no real reason? Absolutely not.”

[RELATED: ‘Bias-Free Language Guide’ claims the word ‘American’ is ‘problematic’]

“With today's world leaning toward over-inclusivity, thi

Read more:

Nebraska system adopts free-speech policy after campus incident

The University of Nebraska Board of Regents recently approved a new freedom of expression policy after a heated confrontation between a conservative student and a teaching assistant sparked national outrage.

The policy, approved January 25, includes plans to educate students and members of the community on the importance of free speech and the First Amendment, while also reiterating the system-wide obligation to respect constitutional rights.

[RELATED: Student gov rushes resolution denouncing free speech bill]

The new policy comes on the heels of an incident at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus, where Teaching Assistant Courtney Lawton and several other instructors harassed Turning Point USA President Katie Mullen while she recruited for new members, calling her a “neo-fascist Becky” and giving her the middle finger.

State lawmakers intervened, with three state representatives sending a letter to the school’s administration demanding that UNL explain its apparent hostility to conservative students and a state senator declaring that Professor Amanda Gaily should be “fired immediately” for her role in the altercation.

Lawton, notably, has been informed that she will not be returning at the end of the spring semester, but UNL has not announced any disciplinary consequences for Gailey.

[RELATED: UNL lecturers booted from Nebraska ‘navy’ for bullying student]

The Board of Regents’ new policy states that freedom of expression and speech are both values that the university “holds dear,” calling the First Amendment “a right that is indispensable to its ability to transmit knowledge and fundamental to the university community’s pursuit to discover, explore, interpret, and question knowledge and opinions.”

“As a corollary to the university’s commitment to protect and promote free expression, members of the university community are expected and required to act in conformity with the underlying principles of free expression,” the policy adds, clarifying that university members are free to protest, as long as the act does not interfere with the speech of others.

Additionally, the policy notes that there will be First Amendment education programs put in place for students and faculty.

“Last, yet of great importance, regular opportunities for the university community to educate itself about

Read more:

Brown students Supporting free speech explicitly dangerous

Students at Brown University vehemently objected to a speech by conservative pundit Guy Benson, saying he enables “white supremacist and fascist ideas” by supporting free speech.

The 18 students, calling themselves “A Collective of Students at Brown University,” wrote an open letter slamming Benson’s appearance at Brown Tuesday night, even preemptively arguing that the event violates the Student Code of Conduct.

[RELATED: UConn to start vetting speakers ‘that may present a risk’]

The letter first attacks Benson’s support for freedom of speech, specifically referencing his view that hate speech should not be limited by the government.

“Based on our research into the speaker, we anticipate that Benson will make arguments in support of the freedom of any person to make hateful, oppressive, or damaging remarks based on their constitutionally protected right to free speech,” the students fume.

They then contend that the event is an insult to the history of student activism at Brown, declaring that they “will not stand idly by as our proud history of student activism is belittled and the real emotional, physical, and psychological needs of marginalized students are denigrated as illogical and irrelevant.”

The letter goes on to say that the “conversation” surrounding free speech is “explicitly dangerous to the well-being and continued thriving of people of color and other marginalized people.”

[RELATED: Tufts students say Ben Shapiro’s views put them in ‘danger’]

“So often, popular conversations around free speech focus on the right of people with power or who hold privileged identities (i.e. who are white, or cisgender men, or wealthy, or able bodied, etc.) to espouse hateful rhetoric which actively makes others less safe,” the students assert. “Rarely do these mainstream conversations on free speech consider the urgent need for people of color and other marginalized people to speak back against systems of oppression for their own self-preservation.”

The students even cite the Brown University Student Code of Conduct, despite acknowledging that it is “a document which we continue to question,” saying that “according to section XI of the Code of Student Conduct, Brown University students cannot support ‘behavior that is intended to or can

Read more:

VIDEO Students sign petition to ban offensive Valentines Day

This year, Campus Reform has reported how college campuses around the country have been forced to modify various holiday celebrations due to concerns over political correctness.

Whether it was warning students of cultural appropriation on Halloween, or restricting Christmas celebrations for fear of offending non-Christians on campus, universities have become increasingly fearful of allowing “offensive” holiday celebrations.

[RELATED: Yale group hosts ‘Anti-Valentine’s’ day to fight ‘capitalism’]

But what about a seemingly harmless, non- (or at best quasi-) religious holiday like Valentine’s Day? While most universities have yet to take action against the day, would students be willing to outlaw it if they felt their peers were offended by the celebration?

To find out, Campus Reform went undercover at Cornell University, armed with a fictitious petition to ban Valentine’s Day, on the grounds that it was simply too offensive to students without a romantic partner.

It quickly became clear that students at Cornell were more than willing to go along with any measure that would supposedly make campus a more inclusive space.

“That’s a really nice petition,” said one student, while another admitted “I’m in a relationship, but I totally understand.”

[RELATED: Students swap Sex Weeks for actual dates this Valentine’s Day]

One student condemned the school’s handling of the holiday in the past, saying “I would also point out the administration is really heteronormative about [Valentine’s Day] which is kinda f***** up.”

One student went so far as to ask for our contact information, so they could share the fabricated petition online to gain more supporters.

What else did they have to say about the idea of outlawing Valentine’s Day? Watch the full video to find out:

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @cabot_phillips

Read more:

Page 4 of 4


National Weather

Click on map for forecast